This sentence "In India, for example, big Hindu festivals can be a time of fear for Muslims and Christians." is a typical anti-Hindu bias displayed by 'The Economist' on plenty of previous occasions.

On the contrary, Muslim festival, in india, is a time to fear for Hindus.
Examples:
1) On August 10 2013, after Eid festival prayers, huge Muslim crowd attacked Hindus in Kistwah, Jammu leaving 2 dead (1 Hindu, 1 unknown), 150 injured, and destroying Hindu homes and establishment.
2) On July 27 2013,In Meerut UP, Muslims objected to the playing of hymns at a temple because it is Ramadan. They switched off the loudspeaker, and beat up Hindus attending prayer. Results riots killed 2 (both Hindus).

The fact is that 70% of religious massacres in India are Hindu massacres. Check 'List of Massacres in India' on wikipedia.

This sentence "In India, for example, big Hindu festivals can be a time of fear for Muslims and Christians." is a typical anti-Hindu bias displayed by 'The Economist' on plenty of previous occasions.

On the contrary, Muslim festival, in india, is a time to fear for Hindus.
Examples:
1) On August 10 2013, after Eid festival prayers, huge Muslim crowd attacked Hindus in Kistwah, Jammu leaving 2 dead (1 Hindu, 1 unknown), 150 injured, and destroying Hindu homes and establishment.
2) On July 27 2013,In Meerut UP, Muslims objected to the playing of hymns at a temple because it is Ramadan. They switched off the loudspeaker, and beat up Hindus attending prayer. Results riots killed 2 (both Hindus).

The fact is that 70% of religious massacres in India are Hindu massacres. Check 'List of Massacres in India' on wikipedia.

I can agree with most of the comments in your article except for one: "In India, for example, big Hindu festivals can be a time of fear for Muslims and Christians." The source you cited as a reference clearly mentions that the so called 'fear' is just an anticipation and I couldn't find any reference as to whether any untoward incident actually happened in this context. Let me remind you that the Indian culture is well known for its "unity in diversity" and has been a home to people from all religions and communities for long. And as for the big Hindu festivals, most of them are celebrated by Hindus and people from other religions alike. The Hindu festivals of Durga Puja, Ganesh Chaturthi, Rathayatra, Holi and many others are popular not only among the Hindus but Muslims and Christians too. In fact, another popular Hindu festival, that of Rakhshabandhan (or more commonly 'rakhi') was introduced by the great poet and Nobel Laureate Rabindranath Tagore to celebrate the brotherhood between Hindus and the Muslims and even to this day, this festival is celebrated by the Hindus and Muslims by tying 'rakhis' (or strings) onto each others hands. Not only the Hindu festivals, festivals of other religious communities like Christmas are celebrated by the Hindus with lot of enthusiasm in perfect harmonious atmosphere. So it is important to have some first hand knowledge about Indian culture before drawing such false conclusions based on some misinterpreted media reports.

"In India, for example, big Hindu festivals can be a time of fear for Muslims and Christians."
When did you visit India last? Who told you that Hindu festivals cause fear among Muslims and Christians?
I am aghast at the extent of misrepresentation that goes against India and its people.
Indians, thanks to their Hindu legacy, have always been a peaceful community, allowing everyone, even their invaders and torturers, enough space and a right to live peacefully.
Even when India was divided to create Pakistan on the basis of religion, Hindu leaders stood up for secularism and ensured that their country protected the minorities and gave them the same rights as the majority. While the population of minorities in India has grown rapidly, even more than the majority, the number of Hindus in Pakistan and Bangladesh has decreased shockingly. I wonder why no one ever mentions this. Just because Hindus don't explode themselves?

As a child in the 1950s, I clearly remember priests and lay Catholic leaders, during holy week, thundering against the jews because they had murdered "the Son of God". While I do not recall any outright violence, the message of hatred and "otherness" was clear.

Actually, the former Yugoslavia in the 1990s offered a pretty shameful example of clergy, from all sides of the argument, urging their co-religionists to go off and take revenge for some "injustice" or centuries-old wrong.

Well, the author used as an example of Christians bulling Jews in Southern Europe during the middle ages to justify the violence committed by Muslims today. Can you find another example please?
Well, why don't you write a little bit more about the fact that in every single place that there are Muslims there is violence and bombs exploding. Seriously every single day you watch in the news about terrorist attacks in Iraq, Afghanistan, India, Egypt, sometimes in the States, Indonesia, Somalia, Russia...

Sir, i agree to most of your observations which you have highlighted in this article but except one.
will you please name that Hindu Festival in india, which mongers to kill any other religious community.
I am sure you will not be able to find one.

Religious thinking (hero worship + strict dogma + the thought crime) always leads to violence. Religion (religious thinking,) as Hitchens teaches us, poisons everything it touches.
Whether it comes in the form of The Inquisition or the Nazis, religious thinking always comes down to some sort of horror.

Just because you threw away one religion doesn't mean you aren't using another in its place. Mao and Stalin built religions around themselves to justify their oppression. Anytime you replace humanism with mindless devotion to an ideal you are asking for human rights violations. "A society of sheep must beget a government of wolves."

Also, your examples are somewhat unusual. Cromwell was a puritan- very devout in his religion and Clinton could not stop talking about his religion though I'm not sure what atrocities he did. Clinton actually gave some support to stopping the Balkans wars.

I don't understand your point. These violent events were not committed because of atheism, they were not pushed for by the champions of atheism and they were not direct result of atheism. Why do you connect everything that happened in Russia as atheism? Ask yourself: would that violence have been caused if there was no atheism. May be you would get the right answer. The truth remains that religion is a retrogressive idea and a complete misfit in today's times.

The issue is not Democracy in the Muslim World.
The critical issue is Religion sponsored Violence.

We want and must have Freedom of Religion.
But Violence for Politics, Tribalism, or Religion
MUST NEVER BE TOLERATED.
____________________________

Let us say there is a World Religion that has a long rich tradition of Human Cannibalism.

And it involves a ritual unwilling sacrifice of a captured or kidnapped human.

And now they want to migrate to your nation.

This religion must NOT be tolerated.
It is not a normal religion.
It is not a conventional religion.
It is not civilized.

Their practice of murder and sacrifice CANNOT be tolerated by any liberal democracy.

The religion MUST change its behavior before it can be allowed into society.
Religion must adhere to conventions of society in so far as murder, bloodletting, honor killing, mutilation, or violence.
_____________________________
Freedom of Religion DOES HAVE LIMITS.
Religion is NOT a license to kill or do any other abhorrent inhuman acts.

Tens of thousands of cows are herded out of India to Bangladesh across the border illegally for slaughter. Cow slaughter is illegal in India, respecting the majority Hindu sensitivity. And yet, because of its extreme corruption, India ironically has many slaughter houses at its port cities for export of beef, presumably to the Persian Gulf countries. This is made possible by a nexus of muslim operators and greedy corrupt hindu officials who pose themselves as seculars. Secularism is a political currency of unthinking, chaotic, rudderless India, and is the proximate cause of many wrongs in India as seen by its unmitigating poverty. The Hindus think of their spirtual life as Dharma, a term that is mistranslated as relgion and hence also misunderstood as religion by both some hindus and most non-hindus. India's problem is not Dharma; its problem is Hindu-hating but islam loving secularism. The secular prime minister of india said in a policy statement that Muslims have the first right to India's resources, which has emboldened the wholesale cow-slaughter.
Thus, India's problems can not be religion but plain hostility to Hindu Dharma by the secular politicians chasing Muslim vote bank.

the only way the economist can approach the massive violence, bigotry and hatred that is pouring forth like a waterfall from islamic ideology right now is by scolding people and reminding of them of vague and largely irrelevant examples of non-muslims from some point in human history doing something bad.

Indonesia systematically discriminates against religious minorities, including shia muslims, but also hindus, christians and buddhists. India is a regular cesspool of reprisals, and is of course the country that spawned pakistan. an entire nation dedicated to the idea that people who aren't muslim aren't welcome and will not be tolerated long term(land of the pure after all).

everything I do is fact based, islam is the greatest perpetrator of bigotry and hatred in the world today. this may change tomorrow. but what ignorant simpletons like this economist article attempt to do is apologize for that prejudice by pointing out non-muslim prejudice with no regard to scale or relevance. its the act of dishonest and cowardly apologia that helps to perpetuated the systems of islamist bigotry that exist in the world today and are in fact multiplying.

I disagree, and think that statement is ignorant, BUT EVEN IF that statement was true. it is irrelevant, we aren't living historically, we are living now. now is the place that matters, the INTENSE, SYSTEMATIC AND IDEOLOGICALLY BASED bigotry of islam is a reality of the now. it is in fact a huge reality of the now that nearly every corner of the world has to deal with in some way.

to ignore it, downplay it or excuse it because of anything historic is to participate in its perpetuation, and to become partially responsible for the bigotry, hatred and violence of islam to continue to survive into the future.

History is never irrelevant. I bring it up because so many Americans act so clueless about it. As for your hateful nonsense, I must wonder how much time you spend on Fox News.
As for NOW, it is pretty obvious we did a lot more senseless murder and devastation than Bin Laden accomplished on 911, via Bush's dunceheaded war in Iraq. That is a fact of NOW you may like to ignore.
The bigotry of Islam is not that different than the bigotry of Southern Christians in the US. The US is as fundamentalist as Iran. In fact most Islamic violence emanates from the machismo of the male-dominated societies it exists in, not the practice of the huge body of people in those societies. Most Muslims are law abiding peaceable people with families.
I like your lean attempt to be on the side of right. But you aren't right in how you make your severe distinctions. People like you ought to be sent a bill for the damage in Iraq, you'd change your tune if you had to be financially responsible. We are all gonna get the bill for the damage to our soldiers.

I don't watch fox news, nor did I want to goto iraq. I guess though when you can just makeup things about people you disagree with then you win all the arguments you want inside your own head.

I do appreciate that you have tried to bring your own particular brand of mindless moral relativism into the present. arguing that something happened a thousand years ago vs people being raped, murdered, having their daughters kidnapped and sold, their communities terrorized with gunfire and arson makes arguing about a thousand years ago seem esoteric, morally reprehensible and naively detached.

if you honestly believe that america is a greater source of intolerance and hatred and bigotry then islam, then I think you're crazy pants wrong. but at least its a type of wrong that I can identify with, at least you're trying to understand things in contexts that are relevant.

for my money islam is the largest most powerful bigoted hateful and violent ideology going around right now. it afflicts almost the entire planet, and at almost all levels. from vigilantism to terrorism, to prejudiced laws designed enforce islamic supremacy to the openly racist media in many islamic countries and islamic communities in non-muslim countries.

You are, and I don't mean this to be cheap or disparaging, just my humble opinion, a raging bigot. Your childish attack on an ancient religion, that is no more harmful than the one you may belong to, reads like the common rant of a person who does not read much, and never attended a decent school. I feel sorry for you.

Let me, as an old man who attended great schools, clue you in to a fact: nobody cares what you haters hate. You post your hate online on a Friday nite, that is pretty pitiful!

If you didn't have a foreign religion with odd looking practitioners to hate, you'd hate something else just as heartily. I would bet you do not actually know one Muslim.

I'm a fighter, you're a hater!

Thanks for the talk, I won't try to talk you off out of your hole any longer.

"if you honestly believe that america is a greater source of intolerance and hatred and bigotry then islam, then I think you're crazy pants wrong" - your comment.

Lnufnaut is right - the Abrahamic religions (Christianity, Islam and Judaism) are violent - and America has a long history of racism, genocide and ethnic cleansing. In fact, both South and North America witnessed the biggest planned genocide in the history of the planet. Here is what George Monbiot (UK's award-winning journalist wrote:

"In 1492, some 100m native peoples lived in the Americas. By the end of the 19th Century almost all of them had been exterminated. Many died as a result of disease. But the mass extinction was also engineered.

When the Spanish arrived in the Americas, they described a world which could scarcely have been more different from their own. Europe was ravaged by war, oppression, slavery, fanaticism, disease and starvation. The populations they encountered were healthy, well-nourished and mostly (with exceptions like the Aztecs and Incas) peaceable, democratic and egalitarian. Throughout the Americas the earliest explorers, including Columbus, remarked on the natives’ extraordinary hospitality. The conquistadors marveled at the amazing roads, canals, buildings and art they found, which in some cases outstripped anything they had seen at home. None of this stopped them from destroying everything and everyone they encountered.

The butchery began with Columbus. He slaughtered the native people of Hispaniola (now Haiti and the Dominican Republic) by unimaginably brutal means. His soldiers tore babies from their mothers and dashed their heads against rocks. They fed their dogs on living children. On one occasion they hung 13 Indians in honor of Christ and the 12 disciples, on a gibbet just low enough for their toes to touch the ground, then disemboweled them and burnt them alive. Columbus ordered all the native people to deliver a certain amount of gold every three months; anyone who failed had his hands cut off. By 1535 the native population of Hispaniola had fallen from 8m to zero: partly as a result of disease, partly as a result of murder, overwork and starvation.

The conquistadors spread this civilizing mission across central and south America. When they failed to reveal where their mythical treasures were hidden, the indigenous people were flogged, hanged, drowned, dismembered, ripped apart by dogs, buried alive or burnt. The soldiers cut off women’s breasts, sent people back to their villages with their severed hands and noses hung round their necks and hunted Indians with their dogs for sport. But most were killed by enslavement and disease. The Spanish discovered that it was cheaper to work Indians to death and replace them than to keep them alive: the life expectancy in their mines and plantations was three to four months. Within a century of their arrival, around 95% of the population of South and Central America had been destroyed.

While the Spanish were mostly driven by the lust for gold, the British who colonized North America wanted land. In New England they surrounded the villages of the native Americans and murdered them as they slept. As genocide spread westwards, it was endorsed at the highest levels. George Washington ordered the total destruction of the homes and land of the Iroquois. Thomas Jefferson declared that his nation’s wars with the Indians should be pursued until each tribe “is exterminated or is driven beyond the Mississippi”. During the Sand Creek Massacre of 1864, troops in Colorado slaughtered unarmed people gathered under a flag of peace, killing children and babies, mutilating all the corpses and keeping their victims’ genitals to use as tobacco pouches or to wear on their hats. Theodore Roosevelt called this event “as rightful and beneficial a deed as ever took place on the frontier.”

It is quite amazing how cumulative national amnesia can be such that there is no mention about this genocide in text books in the USA - children are never told about their real history - no wonder when American children grow up they lecture the world about "values", "equality", etc. The American people are as much victims of propaganda as any Communist country. In Germany, for example, there is a huge holocaust memorial - people go there to be reminded about their past. A Jewish friend of mine (a professor at Stanford University) wrote: " In the United States,, which had nothing to do with the slaughter of European Jews,, there exists upwards of 40 holocaust memorials and a major museum for the murdered Jews of Europe,, but not one for the Holocaust of Native Americans or African Americans for which the US is actually responsible."

American neocons have killed millions in senseless wars in Asia - from Korea and Vietnam to Iraq and Afghanistan - failed military interventions without any clear purpose. And now expansionist and racist Israel is persuading the US to invade Iran.

to call something bigoted is not to be a bigot. of course maybe you're crazy pants enough to believe it does. it must be a fun trip to be in your head. make up things about people you dislike, logic so bad a child would stick his tongue out at you and laugh. oh the jollyness.

oh please tell me about how important your wonderful education is(and apparently my education is inferior!), and how bad it is about the day of the week I'm replying! this is almost as fascinating as you're fabrications about me and you're idea that calling something bigoted makes you a bigot.

I'd get a refund on that education, because its left you with the intellectual weight of a flea.

You need to read the bible - many "verses" about the Jews killing the population of entire cities. The only religious book that openly states that genocide and ethnic cleansing is a religious obligation.

The Zionists are doing that, not the Jews. The real Jews just go along with Zionism in exchange for the free land.

I'm not saying the Jews are peaceful; I just can't think of--nor find--an example of rank & file Jews using the pretext of a religious festival to commit atrocities against their neighbors. Maybe it's because of the Toraic/Talmudic instructions to keep separate from the Gentiles in the first place: historically Jews didn't often have Gentile neighbors to attack, having already gotten rid of them.

But they only do that when God commands them to directly (when they do it without God's permission, they get punished--SEVERELY). And we are talking about violent religious festivals here; I don't think Judaism has any.

Channukah might be violent, if Jewish yuletide mobs had any Greeks handy nearby to mess with; I've never seen a Greek restaurant next to a Synagogue though.

In terms of festivals, there is the incident about the Hanukkah killings:

"Lysias attacked Judas with army of 60,000.

The year following Lysias gathered together threescore thousand chosen men, and five thousand horsemen. 1 Machabees 4:28

Judas asked God to deliver the Syrians like he did the mighty and the strangers to David and Jonathan.

Judas met them with ten thousand men ... and he prayed, and said: Blessed art thou, O Saviour of Israel, who didst break the violence of the mighty by the hand of thy servant David, and didst deliver up the camp of the strangers into the hands of Jonathan the son of Saul and of his armourbearer. 4:29-30

He asked God to scare the hell out of them.

Strike them with fear ... and let them quake at their own destruction. 4:32

And kill them with the sword of those that love him.

Cast them down with the sword of them that love thee: and let all that know thy name, praise thee with hymns. 4:33

And it worked.

God helped Judas kill another 5000.

And there fell of the army of Lysias five thousand men. 4:34

After God "discomfited" the Gentiles, Judas and his brethren went to clean up the Temple.

Then Judas, and his brethren said: Behold our enemies are discomfited: let us go up now to cleanse the holy places and to repair them. 4:36

They found the Temple to be a bit of a mess.

And they saw the sanctuary desolate, and the altar profaned, and the gates burnt, and shrubs growing up in the courts as in a forest, or on the mountains, and the chambers joining to the temple thrown down. 4:38

So they did the usual things that Jews do when they get upset: they rent their garments, put ashes on their heads, and fell on their faces.

They rent their garments ... and put ashes on their heads ...And they fell ... on their faces. 4:39-40

Then they cleaned things up at the Temple and killed some animals for God.

They made new holy vessels, and brought in the candlestick, and the altar of incense, and the table into the temple. And they put incense upon the altar, and lighted up the lamps ... And they offered sacrifice. 4:49-53

And everyone fell on their faces once again. (You just can't do that too many times.)

And all the people fell upon their faces . 4:55

When the Gentiles found out that the Jews had cleaned up the temple, they were exceedingly angry.

Now it came to pass, when the nations round about heard that the altar and the sanctuary were built up as before, that they were exceeding angry. 1 Machabees 5:1

And began to persecute and kill the Jews.

And they thought to destroy the generation of Jacob that were among them, and they began to kill some of the people, and to persecute them. 5:2

Which got Judas (and God) in a killing mood once again.

He slaughtered the children of Esau.

Judas fought against the children of Esau in Idumea, and them that were in Acrabathane ... and he made a great slaughter of them. 5:3

Burned to death the children of Bean.

He remembered the malice of the children of Bean ... And they were shut up by him in towers, and he ... burnt their towers with fire, and all that were in them. 5:4-5

And smote the children of Ammon.

Then he passed over to the children of Ammon ... and they were discomfited in their sight, and he smote them. 5:6-7

God helped Judas kill the Gentiles because God likes the Jewish people more than other people, likes the Jewish religion more than other religions, and likes Jews to kill sacrifice animals to him in the Temple.

Judas, and his brethren, and all the church of Israel decreed, that the day of the dedication of the altar should be kept in its season from year to year for eight days, from the five and twentieth day of the month of Casleu. 1 Machabees 4:59"

The Bible may make reference to killing, as you say, in scriptures that are more than three thousand years old and which was the normal culture of the period. But the big difference with other religions that preach intolerance is that Judaism developed a religious culture of tolerance despite anything tithe contrary in the Bible. The rabbinical tradition has interpreted the Bible in such a way that it is practically impossible to justify killing other than in self-defence or in times of war. For two thousand years Jews have lived in almost every country in the world without trying to take those countries over, without attempting to convert others, respecting the cultures in which they lived and without engaging in war or provocation. For two thousand years they were killed by religious zealots while unarmed and then by Nazis and now by Muslims. Despite what is written in the Bible, as you claim, Israel has given citizenship to non Jews, instead of murdering them, and allows all religions to freely express their faith. In the Palestinian territories, in Lebanon and even Egypt, Christians keep emigrating in fear for their lives. How many Christians, Jews, Hindus or Bhuddists are citizens of Saudi Arabia? NOT ONE. How many in Iran, Pakistan, Bangladesh, the Emirates?
Scriptures are not as important to the behaviour of a religious community as the cultural values in which these scriptures are interpreted. When Mohamedans are able to interpret their scriptures with more tolerance, we will all live in a safer world.

This argument that attempts to justify current muslim violence during religious holidays against other religions ignores the fact that religions are organic creatures and therefore developpe over time. It is not helpful to argue that Christian attackers of Jews in the Middle Ages is the same phenomenon as current attacks by Muslims against Christians, Jews, Bhuddists and Hindus, inter alia. The first does not justify the latter. We are living in the twenty first century and not in the Dark Ages. Just as Christianity evolved to leave behind a religious tradition of violence and intolerance, Islamic culture should be expected to make the same effort and to condemn violence as a form of religious expression. Its inability and unwillingness to do so is provoking violent reactions from victims of other religions who had not in the recent past used violence as an acceptable policy. Of course, there have been violent actions by members of many religions in the recent past, but it is not as part of a systematic expression of a religious philosophy sanctioned by a significant portion of a particular religious establishment, as is the case with the many imams sanctioning violence as a valid and necessary religious expression. These forms of Islamic expression have more in common with the Dark Ages and the infamous Holy Inquisition than Christianity has with its own past. Early in the Twentieth Century Mohammedans had an opportunity to allow the religion to evolve by incorporating tolerance (and not "toleration") into its creed and allowing separation of"Church and State". Unfortunately, this opportunity initially created by Ataturk is being allowed to slowly die. Because religions are organic creatures, we must analyze in what stage a religion finds itself at a particular point in time.
Religious expression in general can be classified into five stages: 1. I have a faith. 2. My faith tells the truth about the relationship between the temporal and the eternal. 3. My faith tells the only truth. 4. My "god" orders me to spread the true faith to the four corners of the earth (proselytism). 5. My "god" has authorized me to spread and enforce the only true faith by ANY means whatsoever.
It is mostly when religions find themselves at stages four or five that social and political upheaval disrupts the peaceful expression of devotion and the peaceful coexistence with other faiths. It does not help those Mohammedans who want to see their faith evolve peacefully and take its place in this modern era that some Westerners attempt to diminish the blatant acts of terror and violence perpetrated by some of their fellow faithful. We need to call things by their true name and not try to minimize the inexcusable pretending thereby to show openness and lack of prejudice. Those many Mohammedans who seek peaceful coexistence need our support in condemning violent and unacceptable forms of religious expression.

Very interesting! I agree to whatever you say here. I differ at only one place, the last para.
You would be surprised that Hinduism can't be classified into these five stages.

1. I am Hindu. But I may have many faiths. I can also be a Buddhist. I can also be a scientist. I can also be a nihilist. I can even be a an atheist Hindu, who abuses gods.
2. My faith tells me that there are innumerable ways to the truth. This is true. That may also be true. This is not truth. And this may very well be truth!
3. My faith does not tell me that truth is one. Even a Hindu child knows it that there are thousands of paths to truth and God (which I don't believe in).
4. Hinduism does not ask me to spread the truth anywhere. It enjoins upon me to try to find it within myself. And tells me that what I may find may not be the truth, may be the truth. It prompts me to doubt everything, even truth. No proselytism for me.
5. Lo...I am a Hindu...and my god has not asked or authorized me to spread or enforce any truth faith anywhere or to anyone. Instead it tells me that there may be as many truths as sages. As many truths as the number of people. It tells me that truth is relative, comparative. It tells me that truth is nothing. That truth is ephemeral. That truth is shortlived. That truth is a lie!
Does it sound like something you find in Stephen Hawking's book?
Well, then this is Hinduism. And it does not fit any of your abovementioned criteria.
Want to know more? Then check Carl Sagan's video on Hinduism on Youtube.

I must add, I was born into a Hindu family, but am a completely atheist person. Being from a Hindu background has enabled me to come to the conclusion that there is no god. And my being atheist, or not visiting temples, or not doing puja, does not clash against my religion. Nobody forces me to be a Hindu. And I have the choice to become a Hindu tomorrow by just telling myself that I am a Hindu. And in the evening I may even decide to become an atheist.
Which religion gives this much freedom to an individual?
Such a great religion and philosophy. And thanks to this liberal philosophy, I am telling you that God is a distorted idea. And all religions are foolishness in today's context. This world would have to get rid of every religion one day. Including mine.

I agree in general terms with what you are saying about Hindus. This and religions such a Bhuddism, Baha'is and others which do not claim exclusivity of truth and recognise more than one way to reach G-d are in stage one and incorporate the real principle of tolerance . If more religions would follow these principles this would be a more peaceful world.

The difference between true religious zealots and simple bandits is: true religious zealots don't rape your children when they come into town.

Afghanistan and Syria are two blatant examples of the secular inclination to rape little boys, which drives the local populations into the embrace of religious zealots: they are better off under Salafists (Taliban / Al-Nusra) than they are under secular bandits (Karzai gov't / Free Syrian Army "moderates").

Religious people are a lot less likely to rape, rob, and kill than nonreligious people, because they follow God's Law VOLUNTARILY, while nonreligious people follow only man's law--but only when 'the man' is looking; God is ALWAYS looking.

I don't know anything about Afghans and Syrians. I am speaking in very general terms.
Religion and the belief in "God" is a relict of a certain primitive phase in human evolution. Morality and altruistic behaviour can be based on scientific principles and is independent of organised religion or of a belief in a "Supreme Being" who is represented on earth by some kind of "Messiah" or "Saviour". Most major religions have this story line as a "meme". The things that you describe (rape, rob, kill, etc.) are simply a manifestations of the occasional bestiality of human behaviour, especially of those who are brainwashed by some primitive ritualistic hocus pocus or by some fanatical ideological pheromones.

"especially of those who are brainwashed by some primitive ritualistic hocus pocus or by some fanatical ideological pheromones"

I gave concrete examples of the exact opposite is true.

The only scientific principles that Atheist morality and altruistic behavior are based upon are those related to gov't surveillance and tax breaks: what's in it for the Atheist other than fear of reprisal and earthly reward?

The guy who coined the term 'meme,' did so to describe why religious people are dumb. The problem is that the guy, himself, was too dumb to get into medical school--rejected over 200 times--while plenty of believers did get in.

Too dumb for med school, he became a biology teacher and Atheist prophet instead--and got plenty of other dumb folks to follow him.

I bet you don't believe in IQ tests either. Most believers do; most Atheists don't.

|Too dumb for med school, he became a biology teacher and Atheist prophet instead--and got plenty of other dumb folks to follow him.

As opposed to what? A Jewish carpenter who claimed to be a supernatural being without showing any evidence? A child-raping warlord in Arabia who claimed to have a direct line to an invisible man in the sky (of course, without showing proof as well)?

Dawkins makes no extraordinary claims, and it goes without saying that he is exponentially more intelligent than any of the founders of the great religions. Although to be fair, the average 14 year old child is more intelligent than any of them ever were, considering the fact that Christianity/Judaism/Islam/Hinduism/etc. were all founded by bronze age illiterates who thought the earth was flat and thunder was a monster.

It's easy to insult atheists if you ignore reality, but then again, ignoring reality is a particularly strong suit for the pious. Why "know" things when you can just believe?

And when you ask, "what's in it for the Atheist other than fear of reprisal and earthly reward?"

I could easily reply with a counter-question: "What's in it for believers if death brings eternal bliss and life on earth is unimportant?"

Of course, this question is far more relevant today given the countless abuses and neverending violence (oftentimes suicidal) by people who believe -- with absolutely no reason -- that when they die, they will be rewarded with infinite pleasure and happiness.

Of course, it's almost infinitely more likely they just rot in the ground and become maggot food. Unfortunately, so do their victims.

"What's in it for believers if death brings eternal bliss and life on earth is unimportant?"

Um, eternal life is what death brings to the Christian. Eternal life is salvation. Salvation is jeopardized by evil acts. Religious people have eternal souls, you see. These souls carry the effects of sin beyond death.

For the soulless Atheist, death is the end. Finis. Putrification of worldly flesh with nothing but base mineral left behind. Nothing they did during life, good nor evil, matters.

"Under God's direction, Moses' army defeats the Midianites. They kill all the adult males, but take the women and children captive. When Moses learns that they left some live, he angrily says: "Have you saved all the women alive? Kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves."

So they went back and did as Moses (and presumably God) instructed, killing everyone except for the virgins. In this way they got 32,000 virgins -- Wow! (Even God gets some of the booty -- including the virgins.) Numbers 31:1-54.

"And the prophet David killed 200 people to "buy his wife":

"Since Saul couldn't kill David with his spear, he figured the next best thing would be to give David his oldest daughter as a wife.

Saul said to David, Behold my elder daughter Merab, her will I give thee to wife. 18.17

But David refused to take her.

David said unto Saul, Who am I … that I should be son in law to the king? 18.18

So he tried another daughter, Michal, who like everyone else "loved David." But David refused her, too.

Michal Saul's daughter loved David: and they told Saul, and the thing pleased him. And Saul said, I will give him her … And Saul commanded his servants, saying, Commune with David secretly, and say … be the king's son in law … And David said, Seemeth it to you a light thing to be a king's son in law, seeing that I am a poor man, and lightly esteemed? 18.20-23

Finally Saul came up with a deal that David just couldn't refuse. He offered to sell Michal for 100 Philistine foreskins.

Saul said, Thus shall ye say to David, The king desireth not any dowry, but an hundred foreskins of the Philistines. 18.25

And this "pleased David well."

And when his servants told David these words, it pleased David well. 18.26

He was so pleased, in fact, that he got a bit carried away and paid twice the asking price.

Wherefore David arose and went … and slew of the Philistines two hundred men; and David brought their foreskins, and they gave them in full tale to the king, that he might be the king's son in law. And Saul gave him Michal his daughter to wife. 18.27

After David paid Saul the 200 foreskins, Saul knew for sure that "the Lord was with David." (How else could David get so many foreskins?)"

It seems that the genocide (and ethnic cleansing) of the people of Palestine started centuries ago.

Moses and David (and in fact, all Israel) are also punished for most of those things: Read the rest of it and you'll see that Moses is not allowed to enter the Holy Land and that David is not allowed to build a Temple.

"All the men of a city come to a house and demand to have sex with the new guy in town.

So what do you think the host did when he answered the door? Well, he offered the mob his virgin daughter (and his guest's concubine), of course! It's the polite thing to do. Any just and righteous man would do the same.

Behold, here is my daughter a maiden, and his concubine; them I will bring out now, and humble ye them, and do with them what seemeth good unto you: but unto this man do not so vile a thing. Judges 19:22

But the the men didn't want his virgin daughter, so he gave them the concubine instead.

But the men would not hearken to him: so the man took his concubine, and brought her forth unto them; and they knew her, and abused her all the night until the morning. Judges 19:25

The next morning, the concubine came back to the house and collapsed at the door.

The Levite opened the door, saw the concubine lying there, and told her to get up. But she didn't answer. So he put her on his donkey and went home.

And when he was come into his house, he took a knife, and laid hold on his concubine, and divided her, together with her bones, into twelve pieces, and sent her into all the coasts of Israel. Judges 19:29

Did you catch that? The Levite cut the concubine into twelve pieces and sent the bloody body parts to the twelve tribes of Israel. (the text doesn't even say whether the concubine was alive or dead when her body was dismembered.)

Now that is a strange way to send a message! Someone from each tribe of Israel got a rotting piece of flesh in the mail. What the fuck were they supposed to make of that? (Oh, look Martha, here's a stinking hunk of putrefied abdomen that arrived in the mail parcel post!)

The story ends with this advice:

Consider of it, take advice, and speak your minds. Judges 19:30

Those who do consider it will immediately reject the idea that the Bible was inspired by God. Hopefully, they will then speak their minds."

There is nothing in this story that indicates that God disapproves of:

A man having a sex slave (concubine)
A father offering his virgin daughter to a sex-crazed mob
Chopping up bodies (dead or alive)
Sending messages with body parts

In these ancient texts, there is one point that I still cannot understand. Why did they seek virgins? After a long battle involving killing hundreds of people, would it not be nicer to get hold of a bottle of wine and sleep with a few experienced women? Virgins are boring - and they tend to make too much noise!!!!

You're clearly acting delusional, as is evident from your arbitrary accusations, lack of rational thought and seemingly random capitalized words, but I still felt I should counter one of your primary claims -- that atheists are somehow low-IQ and/or don't believe in IQ tests.

It's pretty much an established fact that nonbelievers are considerably more intelligent than their religious counterparts, across virtually every race, region, and society. I'm not going to make any guesses as to why this is the case, but the basic fact that atheists score much higher on IQ tests than the pious is undeniable. Unless of course you don't believe in IQ tests.

I think we are getting quite off tangent to the point of completely off-topic. Perhaps it is disrespectful to Erasmus' original intent in rendering this article at the close of Ramadan.

I wrote to your reply only to point out to you and you only the illogic and unusual thinking process of the commenter who, perhaps inadvertently, made a very thought-worthy observation - true and untrue religious zealots. A little like true and untrue trolls who frequent the blog sites of TE with the sole purpose or agenda to slander and smear a whole racial group whichever one that is. It is not in my nature nor intellectual acumen to engage in that kind of exchange. In indeed I consider it beneath me.

Thanks again for your random musings, in addition to other comments that are deadly on topic and frequently meritorious.

Thank you for your profound comments - I agree. What worries me is that in the 21st century where much progress has been made in several key areas, "religious people" of various faiths are becoming more intolerant, and less secular.

The consequence of this is that in many countries, liberals and secular people are becoming an isolated minority. So far the response of liberals has been confused and somewhat apologetic. My view is that secular (and peace-loving) people will need to become somewhat more vigorous and militant to counter the propaganda of theocratic, narrow-minded, racist forces in various parts of the world.

About virgins: you don't have to consult a rabbi for that, the ancient Chinese knew a thing or two about them. Here's a quote from Wikipedia: "Some Ming Dynasty Taoist sects believed that one way for men to achieve longevity or 'towards immortality' is by having intercourse with virgins, particularly young virgins. Taoist sexual books, such as the Hsuan wei Hshin ("Mental Images of the Mysteries and Subtleties of Sexual Techniques") and San Feng Tan Cheueh ("Zhang Sanfeng's Instructions in the Physiological Alchemy"), written, respectively, by Zhao Liangpi and Zhang Sanfeng (not to be confused with semi-mythical Zhang Sanfeng who lived in an earlier period), call the woman sexual partner ding (鼎) and recommend sex with premenarche virgins. Zhao Liangpi concludes that the ideal ding is a premenarche virgin just under 14 years of age and women older than 18 should be avoided. Zhang Sanfeng went further and divided ding into three ranks: the lowest rank, 21- to 25-year-old women; the middle rank, 16- to 20-year-old menstruating virgins; the highest rank, 14-year-old premenarche virgins" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taoist_sexual_practices

Some people seem to be über-sensitive. I prefer open speech and sexual tolerance. As you pointed out in your comment, sexual attitudes and practices are inherent in many religions and I was just continuing your train of thought. I agree with you that irrational religious ideologies are very dangerous for human society and I definitely don't believe in über-liberal-political-correctness when it comes to dealing with brainwashed fanatics, religious or otherwise.

Religion has nothing to do with human morality. Religion rots human reasoning. It turns human mind into a vegetable and human heart into a killing machine. Please take rest for some time and think about it.

Not a big fan of Islam, but my attitude is considerably ameliorated by the egg tarts that my boss distributed around the office today to mark the end of Ramadan. Maybe the same will change Mike Huckabee's mind.

It's the people, not the religion - although some religions are built to be more aggressive than others. Just look at what hockey, Canada's national religion, did to Vancouver.